3. the general manager,
Post on 27-Feb-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
.. GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY
ABSTRACT
ACTS - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Dispute between Management of M/s Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills, Pallore, Puducherry and Rajiv Ji Memorial Trust, Kannur over termination of the services of Thiru R.K. Manoharan - Award of the Labour Court, Puducherry - Published.
LABOUR DEPARTMENT
51- .. . J10F 9APP '"'aG.O.Rt.No. /LAB/AIL/T/2018 Puducherry, the
READ: 1. G.O.Rt.No.30/AIL/LAB/T/2011 dated 07.02.2011 of the Labour Department, Puducherry.
2.Letter No. 114/JUD/IT-CUM-LC/PDY/2018 dated 19.03.2018 enclosing the copy of the Award in I.D (L) No.83/2012 dated 06.03.2018 received from the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court, Puducherry.
ORDER :
The following Notification and the attached Award of the Labour Court, Puducherry shall be published in the next issue of the Official Gazette.
NOTIFICATION
WHEREAS, an Award in l.D (L) No.83/2012 dated 06.03.2018 of the Labour Court, Puducherry in respect of the Industrial Dispute between Management of M / s Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills, Pallore, Puducherry and Rajiv Ji Memorial Trust, Kannur over termination of the services of Thiru R.K. Manoharan - Award of the Labour Court, Puducherry has been received.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) read with the Notification issued in Labour Department's G.0.Ms.No.20/91/LAB/L dated 23.5.1991, it is hereby directed by the Secretary to Government (Labour)[? said Award shall
be published in the Official Gazette, Puducherry. ~ k
(S • . Mou-rio~INGAM ) J-UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To /o" \€ o\V ~(LABOUR}
o.
'" The Director of Stationery & Printing,
\).With a request to sup ply 10 copies of the
Puducherry. Official Gazette to this Department.
Copy to:
1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Puducherry. ~)y 2. The Labour Officer (Conciliation), Puducherry. DESPATCHED3 . The General Manager,
M/s Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills, (A Unit of National Textile Corporation Limited, New Delhi, Pallore-673 333, Mahe, Puducherry State.
4. The Chairman, Rajiv Ji Memorial Trust (S.C. And S.T.), Zam Zam Complex, South Bazar Kakkad Road, Kannur.
5. G.O. Copy. 6 . Spare.
BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT PTJDUCHERRY
PRESENT: THIRU. G. THANENDRAN, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDING OFFICER
Tuesday, the 06th day of March, 2018
I.D(L).No.83/2012
1. The Chairman, Rajiv ji Memorial Trust (S.C. and S.T), Zam Zam Complex, South Bazar Kakkad Road, Kannur.
Petitioners2. Manoharan R.K.
Vs.
The General Manager, Mis. Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills, (A Unit of National Textile Corporation Limited, New Delhi), Pallore - 673 333, Mahe, Puducherry.
. . . Respondent
This industrial dispute coming on 28.02.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Tvl. M.D. Thomas, Advocate for the petitioner and Thiru. T.C. Valsarajan, Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the case records, after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:
AWAR,1D
1. This Industrial Dispute has been referred by the Government as
per the G.O.Rt.No.30/AIL/LAB/J/2011, dated 07.02.2011 for
adjudicating the following:·
a. Whether the dispute raised by the Rajiv ji Memorial Trust,
Kannur, against the management of M/s.Cannanore
Spinning & Weaving Mills, Pallore over termination of the
services of Thiru.R.K.Manoharan is justified or not?
b. If justified w1,at relief the petitioner is entitled to?
2
c. To compute the relief, if ~ny awarded in terms of money. if
it can be so computed?
The above reference originally taken on fi\e by the Sub Court at
Mahe which was being functioned as Labour Court in I.D.No.0112011
and subsequently when this lndustfial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court
established in the year 2012, the case has been transferred to this
Court and this case was taken on file by renumbering it as
l.D(L).No.83/2012.
2. The averments in the clahn state1nent of tb.e first
petitioner, in brief, are as follows :
The first petitioner is a trust constituted for the purpose of up
liftment and protection of its members belonging to SC and ST
community. The representation was sltlbmitted by the second petitioner
regarding the denial of his employment by the respondent. The second
petitioner joined in the service under respondent management as an
employee Muster Roll No.59 in the"simplex department on 16.04.1977.
The respondent management. has not given proper protection of
employment to the second petitioner and also he was not approved as a
permanent employee. When the second petitioner enlightened his
eligibility to become a permanent employee the respondent instead of
appointing him as a permanent employee, terminated him from service 1;
violating all norms and rules of natural justice. Since the second
petitioner belongs to Malayan Community which is a scheduled case in
Kerala State he is entitled to protection of employment. The
respondent was reluctant to make the second petitioner as a permanent
3
employee though he is having 17 years service. There is a caste
discrimination shown towards second petitioner by the respondent.
The respondent is not complying the reservation guaranteed to the .
persons belonging to the schedule caste and schedule tribe. The second
petitioner was terminated from service okl 10.02.1994 and subsequently
he was permitted to work as a gate badali with effect from 20.09.2004.
Even though the second petitioner had worked as gate badali, the
respondent has not provided sufficient daily work to him with a view to
gradually remove the second petitioner from the position of gate badali.
Subsequently the respondent removed the name of the second
petitioner from the Badali register in the month of June 2010 without
affording an opportunity to hear the side of the second petitioner. The
respondent has not issued any show cause notice or conducted any I
enquiry against second petitioner in order to terminate him from the
service. The respondent acted without any legal basis and manipulated
and fabricated documents which are in the custody of the respondent .
with a view to deny the employment of second petitioner. Therefore the
first petitioner prayed this court to pass an Award directing the
respondent to reinstate the second petitioner as a permanent employee
in Simplex department and to direct the respondent to pay the arrears
of salary and other benefits from 10.02.1994 till the date of
reinstatement.
3. The averments in the claim state1nent of the second
petitioner, in brief, are as follows :
The second petitioner joined in the service under respondent
management as an employee Mus'ter Roll No.59 in the simplex
4
department on 16.04.1977. The second petitioner belongs to Schedule
caste community and appointed underireservation of the said category
and he worked under the respondent with full honest and sincerity.
The second petitioner was not made permanent and hence he
submitted the said fact before the respondent. The respondent
management instead of appointing him as a permanent employee
terminated him from service in violation of all norms of natural justice.
The second petitioner belongs to Malayan Community which is a
scheduled caste in Kerala State and hence he is entitled to protection of
employment. The respondent shown caste discrimination towards the 11
second petitioner and only on that count he was denied
employment. The second petitioner was terminated from service on
10.02.1994. The said order of termination was challenged by the
second petitioner and an application was submitted before the Labour
Department, Puducherry. It was ordered by the Labour court to
reinstate the second petitioner but the respondent for one or other
reason best known to them ·deliberately not reinstated him.
Subsequently the second petitioner was permitted to work as a gate
badali with effect from 20.09.2004. Eyen though the second petitioner
had permitted to work as a gate badali, the respondent has not
provided sufficient daily work to him with a view to gradually remove
him from the position of gate badali. The respondent removed the
name of the second petitioner from the badali register in the month of
June 2010 without affording an opportunity to hear the side of the
second petitioner. The respondent done all the atrocities against the
second petitioner without any legal basis. The action of the respondent
If
5
is highly illegal and arbitrary. The respondent have manipulated and
fabricated documents in order to deny the legitimate right of the second
petitioner. Hence the second petitioner is entitled to reinstating as
permanent employee in simplex department and therefore prayed this
court to pass an award directing the res~ondent to reinstate the second
petitioner as a permanent employee in Simplex department and to
direct the respondent to pay the arrears of salary and other benefits
from 10.02.1994 till the date of reinstatement.
4. The b1:ief averments in the written statement filed by the
respondent are as follows:
The respondent denied the entire allegations and averments as
contained in the claim petition and stated that the petitioner was a
permanent employee of the respondent f\1ill and none of the officials of 1
the management has shown any caste discrimination either against
claim petitioner or against other workers in the Mill. The action was
taken by the management only due to the absence in the duty on the
part of the claim petitioner. The claim petitioner was a chronic and
habitual absentee in duty. Because of this the then management
reverted him to badali as a disciplinary measure under clause 11 (1) of
the Mill standing order as per office order No.3486 dated 09.11.1992.
The said fact was also well known to the claim petitioner who accepted
the same and worked as badli. The 1tlaim petitioner was also given
warning that his name will be removed from badali register incase he
could not complete 70 days of attendance within 3 months from
09.11.1992 onwards. The claim petitioner was irregular in duty and he
continued his habit of absence in duty :;tnd he was not attending even a
6
single day,_·: work from January 1994 to 10.02.1994. As per the order
dated 10.02.1994 he was removed frow badali register from 10.02.1994
because he was continuously absent from January 1994 to 10th
February 1994. As per section 2A or 2(k) of Industrial Dispute Act
either the first petitioner or the second petitioner have no right to file a
claim petition or to raise an industrial dispute before any forum.
Therefore the issue in the claim petition cannot be decided before this
court. The Labour court is not having jurisdiction to entertain this
claim petition. As no claim petition was filed by the claim petitioner
before raising of dispute, there is no industrial dispute in existence and
the reference to this court is bad in l~w and hence this proceedings is
not maintainable. The first petitioner is not having any connection
with this respondent and is not a trade union. The first petitioner has
no right to represent before any Labour court as per law. As per
section 2A or 2(K) of the Industrial DiJsputes Act no right is available a
single work man to raise a dispute in the given circumstances. The
claim petitioner had challenged ·&he order of the management dated
10.02.1994 before the Asst. Labour Inspector, Mahe. Consequent to the
petition there was an agreement signed by the claim petitioner and I '
management before the Asst. Labour officer, Mahe on 14.09.1994 and
in that agreement, the claim petitioner had been reinstated as trained
gate badli with effect from 28.09.1994. Even after the agreement the
claim petitioner had never improved his attendance in duty and he was
a chronic and habitual absentee in duty. The claim petitioner was
permitted to do work as and when he was present. But the claim
petitioner had never improved his attendance in duty and he was a
v
7
chronic and habitual absentee. Even after the agreement the claim
petitioner had never improved his attendance and he has not shown
even a sign of improvement and he continued to be a chronic and
habitual absentee. The claim petitioner is workin~ at All India Radio
as a Tabala Artist and he is attending there regularly and he
occasionally comes to the Mill. The 1continuous absence in duty is
highly detrimental to the running of the Mill. The action taken by the
Mill is honest, bonafide and fully justified in the facts and
circumstances of the matter. Even now on 13.10.2011 the name of the
claim petitioner is borne in trained gate badli records and register and
his name is not removed even now. He will be given work in the Mill as
and when there is work to be allotted to him and the petitioner is
present on such days on which work is available to be allotted to him.
Hence there is no subject at all to be de~ided by this court as there is no
pending dispute in the matter. No claim petition could be legally filed
directly before the court as there is no provision for the same in any of
the nature. Hence the above prot:eeding is not maintainable. The
claim petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the claim I
petition. Therefore prayed this court to dismiss the claim petition.
5. In the course of enquiry on the side of the petitioner WWI and
WW2 were examined and Ex.Pl was marked. However even after
granting sufficient opportunities WW2 has not turned up before this ,,,
court for subjecting himself for cross examination of respondent side
and hence the oral evidence of WW2 and Ex.Pl marked through WW2
was eschewed by this court. On the side of the respondent RWI was
examined and Ex.RI was marked. Both sides are heard. The pleadings
8
of the parties, the evidence let in by either sides and the exhibits
marked on both sides are carefully considered. On the side of the
respondent argument notes was fil~d and the same was carefully
considered. In support of his case, the leatned counsel for the
respondent has relied upon the order passed in W.P.No.33756 of 2012
and M.P.Nos,2 of 2012 and 1 of 2-013 - All India General Insurance Obc
Vs. United India Insurance Company.
6. The point for consideration is:
Whether the dispute raised by the first petitioner against the
respondent management over termination of the services of
Thiru.R.K.Manoharan the second pt:ltitioner is justified or not and if
justified what is the relief entitled to the said R.K.Manoharan?
7. It is the evidence of WWI that the second petitioner joined in the
service at the respondent establishment on 16.04.1977 and his muster
'" roll number is 59 and he was appointed under reservation of the
schedule caste community categcr.ty and that the second petitioner was
not made permanent by the respondent management and hence he has
asked the management to give permanent status and instead of
appointing him as a permanent employee the respondent management
terminated him from service without following the principles of natural
justice and that the second petitioner is a protected employee as he
belongs to scheduled caste in Kerala and only on the caste
discrimination the second petitioner was denied employment on., 10.02.1994 and hence he raised the industrial dispute before the
Labour Department, Puducherry and even then the respondent
JI
I 9
management has not reinstated the second petitioner and only
permitted the second petitioner to work as a gate badali and thereafter
the respondent has not provided sufficient daily work to the second
petitioner with a view to gradually remove the second petitioner from
the position of gate badali and that the name of the second petitioner
was also removed from the badali register in the month of June-2010
without affording an opportunity to hear his side and that therefore the Ir
termination made by the respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary and
the respondent have manipulated and fabricated documents in order to
deny the legitimate right of the second petitioner. In support of h1s oral
evidence no document has been exhibited by WWl to corroborate the
case of the petitioners.
8. It is the evidence of RWl that the second petitioner is not entitled
for protection of employment and the respondent has not shown caste
discrimination towards the second petitioner and the second petitioner fi
was a chronic and habitual ab&entee in duty and therefore the
management has reverted him to badali as a disciplinary measure
under clause 11 (1) of the Mill standing order on 09.11.1992 and that
after giving warning letter the name of the second petitioner was
removed from badali as he has not completed 70 days of attendance
within 3 months from 09.11.1992 onwards and the second petitioner
was irregular in duty and was continuously absent from January 1994
to 10.02.1994 and his name was removed from badali register from
10.02.1994 and the second petitionerllhad been reinstated as trained
gate badli with effect from 28.09.1994 as per the agreement made
between the management and the second petitioner on 14.09.1994 and
1o,,
the second petitioner had never improved his attendance in duty and
he was a chronic and habitual absentee in duty and that the first
petitioner is not having any right to represent before the Labour court
as it is not a trade union and as per the provision a single workman 11
cannot raise the industrial dispute and that the second petitioner is not
entitled for any relief as claimed-by him and that the RWl has denied
the other evidence of PWl and in support of his evidence the RWl has
exhibited the copy of the standing order of the respondent Mill.
9. From the pleadings and evidence of both the parties it is clear
that the following facts are admitted by either sides that the second
petitioner had been in service at the respondent establishment and he
was terminated from service on 10.02.1994 against which the second
I·~
petitioner has raised the industrial dispute before the conciliation
officer wherein both the parties have agreed and the respondent
management has accepted to reinstate the second petitioner as a
trained gate badly with effect from 28.09.1994 and that the second
petitioner was permitted to work as a 'gate badli by the respondent and
thereafter action was taken by the respondent management in the year
2010 for the absence of second petitioner who has raised the industrial
dispute before the conciliation officer and the conciliation was failed
and thereafter the Government has nt~de the reference to this court to
adjudicate the dispute.
10. It is the case of the petitioners that the second petitioner was
terminated from service on 10.02.1994 and the second petitioner has
challenged the same before the Conciliation officer for reinstatement
11
and subsequently the second petitioner was permitted by the
respondent to work as a gate badli' and the respondent removed
the name of the second petitioner from badli register in the month of
June-2010 without giving opportunity to the second petitioner and that
the second petitioner is entitled for reinstatement and for back wages.
,. 11. It is the contention of the respondent management that first
petitioner is not the union registered under the Trade union Act and it
is only the trust and hence it cannot raise the industrial dispute and as
the first petitioner is not registered under the Trade Union Act, it
cannot represent the second petitioner and in support of his contention
the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the order passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.33756 of 2012 and
M.P.Nos,2 of 2012 and 1of2013, wherein it has been held that,
" .............For the purpose of rfpresenting the workmen,
a group must first of all get itself registered under the
Trade Union Act and thereafter, seek fro recognition as.. held by the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of
India Staff Union Vs. Food Corporation of India
reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 678...."
From the above observation it is clear that registered trade union
can represent the workmen. In this case apart from the first petitioner
the second petitioner also has filed a claim statement. Further from
the reference it is clear that the pIJ$. of the respondent that the first
petitioner is not a registered union and has no locus standi to raise the
dispute has not been taken up before the conciliation officer who has
sent the failure report to the Government and further the first
12
petitioner also is a registered trust under the Act and it can represent
the petitioner worker as it has got interest over the employees and
therefore the contention of the respondent management that the first ,, petitioner has no locus standi to raise the industrial dispute for the
second petitioner is not sustainable and it cannot be accepted and
therefore it is to be held that the industrial dispute raised by the
second petitioner though first petitioner is sustainable.
12. The second contention of the respondent management is that the
second petitioner was a chronic and habitual absentee in duty and
action was taken by the management and the management reverted
him to badli as a disciplinary measure under section 11(1) of the h
standing order of the Mill, the Ex.RI. It is learnt from claim petition
filed by the second petitioner that after he was terminated from service
on 10.02.1994 he challenged it before the Labour Department and then
on agreement entered between the parties he was permitted to work as
a gate badly. From the admission of the respondent management it is
clear that the second petitioner is the employee who had been in service
as a permanent worker at the respondent establishment and
subsequently he was reverted to badli worker in the year 1994 and it is
not disputed by the respondent management that the second petitioner
had not been in service from 16.04.1977 at the respondent
establishment. These facts would go to show that the second petitioner
was in service at the respondent establishment from 1977 and after 15
years he was reverted back as badli worker against which the second I
petitioner has raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation
officer wherein it was agreed by the respondent management to
11
. / / ' '. 13
reinstate the second petitioner with effElct from 28.09.1994. Though the
respondent management has contended that the second petitioner was
not a permanent employee of the respondent Mill it is not denied by the
respondent management that the second petitioner has joined at the
respondent establishment in the year ~977 and he had been service for . I'
about 15 years while he was reverted back as a badli worker and it is
stated by the respondent management that the second petitioner has
not turned up for work since from June 2010 and however it was
admitted by RWl that till 13.10.2011 the name of the second petitioner
was borne in trained gate badli register and his name has not been
removed from the said register even now. These facts would go to show
that the second petitioner was in service at the respondent
establishment for about 15 years and thereafter he was reverted as
badli and subsequently his name was\ removed from badli register in
the month of June-2010 without affording any opportunity to the
second petitioner and thereafter the first petitioner as well as the
second petitioner has raised the industrial dispute over non-
employment of the second petitioner ~nd for other reliefs. Though it
was stated by the respondent in the counter that consequent to the
petition there was an agreement signed by the claim petitioner and
management before the Asst. Labour officer, Mahe on 14.09.1994
wherein the claim petitioner had been ,reinstated as trained gate badli Ii
with effect from 28.09.1994 to establish the same no such agreement
was exhibited before this court by the respondent. ~
13. Further though the petitioners had not been exhibited any
documents to prove that the second ~~titioner had been in service at
14
the respondent establishment for about 15 years then he was reverted
by the management and thereafter he was permitted to work as badli,
it is admitted by the respondent' management that the second
petitioner had been in service at their establishment and he was
reverted back as a badli worker and subsequently the dispute was
arose between the parties. Further the respondent management
witness RWl has stated in his cross examination as follows:
"I do not know the date of appointment of the
petitioner. I have verified the service records of the
petitioner. The petitioner was the permanent employee
thereafter he was reverted as badali worker. It is
H suggested by the petitioner that the petitioner had joined
on 16.04.1977 at our establishment in simplex department
in master roll no.59 is denied by me since I do not know
the exact date of appointment. I could not admit or deny
the above facts since I did not ~o through the records and
so far I have not verified the records. I do not know the
exact date of termination. If the employee belonging to
scheduled caste, he is entitled for protection. But I do not
know whether the petitioner is belonging to scheduled
caste or not. We have not recei~ed any certificate from the
petitioner that he is belonging to scheduled case. We did
not conduct any domestic enquiry to terminate the
petitioner from service. As per the certificate produced
before this court by the petitioner as Ex.Pl, I cannot I
confirm that the petitioner belongs to scheduled case. The
certificate is issued by Thasildar, Thalassery. Before the
petitioner was reverted as badaJi worker from the
·/ I:
15
permanent service. I do not know whether there was any
domestic enquiry conducted by the management or not. It
is suggested by the petitioner I am not able to say anything
about the petitioner. Since I have not produced any
records is denied by me. The s'l\ggestion that we have not
conducted any proper enquiry against the petitioner
before terminating the petitioner is denied by me"
From. the above evidence, it is clear and corroborated by RWl
that the second petitioner had been in service at the respondent
establishment as a permanent worker and subsequently he was
reverted back as badli worker and that the respondent management
has not conducted any domestic enquiry against the second petitioner
for the misconduct of unauthorized absence before terminating the
second petitioner from service and evel.1.1 they have not issued any show
cause notice or charge memo regarding the alleged unauthorized
absence claimed by the respondent management in their counter and
therefore from the evidence of RWl it is corroborated that the second
petitioner had been in service at the ,respondent establishment as a
permanent worker from 16.04.1977 and without conducting enquiry
and without giving opportunity the second petitioner was terminated
from service.
14. Further except the said standingl!order no document is exhibited
before this court by the respondent management to establish that
opportunities were given to the second petitioner before r everting him
as a badli worker though he had been in service for about 15 years at
the respondent establishment and 1to establish that the second '
16 •
petitioner has committed unauthorized absence from duty. Admittedly,
no domestic enquiry was conducted by the respondent management ji
before removing the name of the second petitioner from the badli
register and it is also not established by the respondent management
that the second petitioner was in continuous absence in attending the
duty by filing the attendance "register before this court and that
therefore it is to be inferred that the second petitioner has not
committed any misconduct of unauthorized absence and hence it is
decided that the industrial dispute raised by the first petitioner against
the respondent management over termination of the services of second
petitioner is justified. II
15. As this court has decided that the industrial dispute raised by the
first petitioner against the respondent management over termination of
the services of second petitioner is justified, it is to be decided whether
the second petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as claimed by the
petitioners. It is learnt from the records the deposition which was
eschewed by this court that the second petitioner might have attained
the age of superannuation and therefore now the second petitioner
could not be reinstated by the respoffdent management. Considering
the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the age of the
second petitioner the order of reinstatement would not be passed by
this Tribunal and hence compensation has to be fixed tentatively.
Therefore considering the above facts and circumstances and the long
period of litigation pending before this Tribunal, this Tribunal is
inclined to pass an Award directing the respondent management to pay
II
17 !~
the compensation of Rs.3,00,00Q/.(Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the
second petitioner for the unlawful termination of his service.
16. In the result, the petition is allowed and bhe industrial dispute
raised by the first petitioner against tllie respondent mal).agement over
termination of the services of second petitioner Thiru.R.K.Manoharan
' . . .\ . '
is justified and Award is passed directing the respondent management
to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/·(Rupees Three Lakhs only) to
the second petitioner for the unlaw£tt~ termination of his service. No
cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06th day of March, 2018.
/~/
II ~~ '!,\\~(G~A~NmtAN) \q \
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT PUDUCHERRY
LIST Of" PETITIONER'S Wl,.fNESSES~-!b
WWI 09.02.2012 Laksh~anan Panakkadan
WW2 09.02.2012 R.K.Manoharan (eschewed)
LIST OF PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:'
Ex.Pl 12.01.2012 True Mopy of community certificate (eschewed) issued by Tahsildar, Thalassery to the
second petitioner R.K. Manoharan.
LIST OF RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES:
RWl 16.02.2018 S.S. Vasan
·"' •'18 •
LIST OF RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
Ex.Rl 1967 Copy of Sta~ing Order, Kannur Spinning & 'Neaving Mill Limited, Unit No.11.
.~ · -- /~\\@ (;, ;~NENDRAN)
PRESIDING OFFICER TRUE COPY INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT PUDUCHERRY
11
top related